Subscribe to discover Om’s fresh perspectives on the present and future.
Wabi-Sabi of Vintage Digicams
When reading this story about the growing popularity of vintage digital cameras in Wired, I was reminded of this quote by Don Draper from the television series Mad Men:
“Nostalgia – its delicate, but potent. Teddy told me that in Greek nostalgia literally means “the pain from an old wound.” It’s a twinge in your heart far more powerful than memory alone.”
TLDR: Vintage digital cameras from the early 2000s are having a moment. They are being used as tools for artistic expression. Their “flaws” – low resolution, noise, and imperfect colors – are becoming prized features in an era of AI-perfect smartphone photos. It is funny that this story comes out when Sony launched its latest, most advanced camera, the new version of the A1 — and it makes photography feel almost like a video game.
Key Points:
- Photographers are looking for older cameras with CCD sensors that produce distinctive noise patterns and contrast.
- A “true digicam” is a camera from 2000 to 2004.
- The enthusiasts of these old cameras are okay with limitations such as battery issues and obsolete memory card formats. The workarounds are part of the process. Some are using power banks and custom cables to keep vintage cameras operational.
- Wired points out that when it comes to digital preservation, we focus on saving digital files, but don’t think about the actual tools that created early digital culture. These vintage digital cameras aren’t just imaging devices; they’re artifacts that shaped how an entire generation viewed and documented its world.
Some Thoughts:
Two years ago, when my sister told me that my niece didn’t want a Fuji x100 (which is about a decade old) but instead an older Canon point-and-shoot camera, I was flabbergasted. Why would you spend so much money on something when you can have a better “vintage” camera? I should have paid more attention because now it is a full-on trend that is no different from the revival of cassette tapes, vinyl records, and film cameras.
Just as vinyl returned when streaming made music “too perfect,” a growing number of photographers — mostly from Gen Z — are pushing back against computational photography’s clinical precision. A few months ago, The New Yorker wrote about an app that allowed you to remove Apple’s processing from your iPhone photos and make them look a bit more basic. Given my propensity for photo editing, I missed the point of the New Yorker story.
I didn’t get the point that people don’t shoot in “RAW” and don’t like to “edit” like I do. As a result, I got into an argument with the writer, perhaps because the story didn’t focus on the “why” as much as it did on the tools and the impact. Eventually, I realized the error of my ways.
Retromania? Not really. It feels more like a backlash against the excessive perfection of modern cameras, algorithms, and homogenized modern image-making. I don’t disagree — you don’t have to do much to come up with a great-looking photo these days. It seems we all want to rebel against the artistic choices of algorithms and machines — whether it is photos or Spotify’s algorithmic playlists versus manually crafted mixtapes.
The camera — standalone or in the phone — does it all for you. It removes warts and all. Now some photographers are deliberately choosing imperfection, noise, and constraint. It’s reminiscent of how early web designers embraced the limitations of 8-bit graphics to create distinctive aesthetic styles. We have also seen a revival of the eighties-style design on the web. (Just look at the logo of the CrazyStupidTech newsletter!)
Creativity needs constraints. For example, I personally like to use a single manual lens for my photography. It slows everything down for me and helps me frame, compose, and imagine the final image, instead of hurriedly capturing a photo. If it is blurry — well, so are my eyes without glasses. By using a lens that mimics my field of view, I am able to truly capture what I see and then interpret it as an imagined artwork. If it is not sharp, neither is my vision.
Sure, I edit my photos — but that is part of the “creation” process that I don’t want machines to do on my behalf. The retro cameras add a level of imperfection without needing to use computer editing software, so I totally understand more people want to use those kinds of cameras.
Even I do that myself. I have an older Leica M9 camera that I use with a vintage 50mm Summitar lens. It is so hard to use, and that is the point. I use old 8 GB memory cards and carry two batteries with me when I take these oldies for a spin. If I take 100 photos in a day — or about three rolls of film — I am hoping for 5 good ones. And to get those five is a lot of hard work. I don’t really have to edit those photos, barring some tiny tweaks like brightness or contrast. They look great as they are.
November 30, 2024. San Francisco
Footnotes:
- Wabi-sabi as an aesthetic concept is generally described as the beauty of things that are imperfect, impermanent, and incomplete.
- Anyone want a 50-megapixel PhaseOne CCD unit? Make me an offer.
- I have an old Panasonic micro four-thirds camera somewhere. Happy to sell it to anyone who is looking for one with some lenses.
7 thoughts on this post
Comments are closed.
This idea that young people are choosing retro cameras over new ones strikes me more as a generational fad than a conscious artistic choice simply because the people making this choice don’t really have the kind of experience with photography that would suggest they are sophisticated photographers. As someone heavily influenced by the Provoke era of Japanese photography and the more recent intentional camera movement style of photography I came to these decisions through years of gradually moving away from conventional ideas about what makes a good photograph through experience and study. I don’t mind it at all. I just think that the media have put more value on this fad than it deserves.
I am not sure so completely agree or disagree with you. I shared my niece’s story from 2022. It is two years later. And it seems a whole generation of consumers is interested in using these cameras. it could be a fad, but it has lasted so long. the question is why — the people are not wanting to tell algorithms to tell them what to do. Plus modern cameras have become a bit “too” much.
Two years is not long for a fad. I remember the LOMO and similar plastic camera fad which lasted at least two years and then dwindled but still exists. And the motivation was similar, I think.I suppose my taste in photographs falls outside the desire to take photographs which look like typical calendar art photographs or Leica reportage work . I know many people working with very good digital cameras who produced very uncalendar art photographs, just two examples: Chris Friel https://www.flickr.com/photos/cfriel/ who shoots with a Canon mark 5 something or Olga Karlovac on Instagram who shoots with a Rico GR2. These are straight out of camera photographs. My point being that people who know what they are doing can avoid the digital perfection look and choosing a camera which makes everything look less than perfect is a beginners’ technique.
Eric
My family isn’t the cutting edge, so by the time the fad got to them it was already 2 years in the making. I think we have been on this curve for about five years. The sales of old point-and-shoots are still going strong. A lot has to do with people not likely “algorithms” determining what they capture. I think the fad is a fad because most people who are using these cameras are not really professionals but regular GenZ snappers.
As for people who are shooting with latest cameras, knowing what they do with the camera, that is part of the fun of camera and their capabilities. I am happy with Photoshop 😉
Eight (or so) years ago I commented, rather offhandedly, within a larger discussion of that (or much that) which was or had been changed as digital overtook so many items, devices, methods of operation, and entertainment.
Vinyl, I said, LPs, offered an audio ambience not duplicable digitally.
That was met with great scorn. One of the fathers of the net, a friend, was coldly dismissive of my take. He noted the perfections of digital music capture. Highs and lows, he argued, were best captured digitally.
Yes, I added, certain sound dynamics are enhanced in precision digitally, but the soul and feel take an audio back seat. One does not get a sense of the room, so to speak.
This, too, was met with derision. Written off to my decades in the radio and music businesses when vinyl was king.
Be all that as it may. I retain my space-taking LP collection. It is vast, a benefit (?) of having decades of radio and record company involvement.
Vinyl still sounds better to me.
Chacun a son gout. That sounds better to me than its English counterpart. It is a long standing writer’s artifice to offer a foreign language quote to (seemingly) stress the point being made.
No artifice necessary for my ears when it comes to vinyl.
Dean
We all have choices. I have made my peace with Digital Music and happy to just let it play. My ears are going, so not sure I can even tell the difference. I am looking forward to selling my hifi gear. Sad times for my best music years might be behind me.
I am resolutely vintage in my writing instruments though. 🙂
“pushing back against computational photography’s clinical precision. ” The irony is that the old geezer set, many of whom grew up using film, love that clinical precision of color, pixels, equivalence, “sharpness,” and bokeh. At least on some blogs, like the “Online Photographer,” they seem utterly baffled that younger photographers might prefer a bit of imperfection that comes from film or older digital cameras. To each his own…..